Lewandowski may lead White House impeachment team

Corey Lewandowski, the political operative who helped elect Donald Trump, has had conversations with White House officials in recent days about potentially taking a position inside the administration to help the President confront a looming impeachment fight.

The discussions, including a Thursday afternoon meeting at the White House, reflect the growing recognition among Trump’s allies and advisers that he is without a clear strategy for managing the crisis, which exploded in stunning fashion this week, according to multiple people familiar with the talks.

Trump’s 2016 campaign manager would be in a crisis management type role, and the idea as it currently stands would be for Lewandowski to assemble a team that mirrors the one that existed in Bill Clinton’s White House when he was facing his own impeachment.

The list of potential players on the team includes David Bossie, his former deputy campaign manager who angered the President earlier this year by soliciting funds using Trump’s name. Bossie served as the chief investigator of the Republican-led House Oversight Committee in 1997, helping scrutinize Clinton.

“As I have done for the last five years, I will continue to serve the President in any capacity he thinks I can be most helpful. However, I have not spoken directly to the President about leading an effort to push back on the fake impeachment narrative,” Lewandowski told CNN.

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham denied that an impeachment response team is in the works.

“Despite what CNN clearly hopes to be true, there are no plans to form an impeachment response team. If your sourcing is so ‘strong,’ at least one of them would have the courage to say it on the record. You don’t have even one person on the record because it’s just not true,” Grisham said.

Lewandowski, who was fired midway through Trump’s campaign, remains close to the President and is a regularly guest aboard Air Force One and at the White House. His presence in Trump’s inner circle is controversial, however, given his loudly proclaimed view of letting “Trump be Trump” instead of attempting to apply discipline to the freewheeling president. Lewandowski has also chafed at times with some members of Trump’s family.

He also came under fire during a recent appearance in front of the House Judiciary Committee when he publicly admitted lying to the press, sparking an audible reaction in the room when he said: “I have no obligation to be honest with the media because they’re just as dishonest as anyone else.”

Lewandowski also teased a rumored New Hampshire US Senate bid, recently tweeting: “New website just launched to help a potential senate run. Sign up now!” he said, alongside a link to what appeared to be a super PAC.”

The response team would be to help spearhead strategy and messaging as the House of Representatives’ impeachment probe heats up. The role could also exist outside the White House, and many of the details of the arrangement are still unclear.

CNN reported earlier Thursday that some people close to Trump believe he is in denial about the gravity of his predicament, and it is still not clear whether the President is ready to acknowledge he needs such a team.

But several of his advisers have expressed concern that Trump’s team appears without a strategy as a long-anticipated impeachment proceeding becomes a reality.

Several allies have made the case for standing up a dedicated team to handle the matter — realizing how dire impeachment is and how hard it would be for a typical White House political and press shop to keep up. The White House legal team has expressed confidence in facing such a probe, but the rest of ranks of the White House are widely seen as depleted.

The White House is considering bringing other officials in as well, though some aides are pushing back on the need for such a team, claiming those who are already there are well-equipped to face off with Democrats.

During the last US impeachment proceedings, Clinton retained a personal legal team both to help combat perjury and obstruction of justice charges and to help mold public perceptions of the case.

A key difference, however, is Clinton had already been reelected when the charges were levied. Trump will face the impeachment process at the same time he is gearing up for another presidential campaign, lending the matter more political weight.

New details reveal acrimonious split between Epstein and Duke of York

On August 19, Buckingham Palace put out a statement signed by Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, that was emphatic in distancing the British Royal from the late disgraced financier, Jeffrey Epstein.

“His Royal Highness deplores the exploitation of any human being and the suggestion he would condone, participate in or encourage any such behavior is abhorrent,” it said in part.

The statement came days after The Mail On Sunday published grainy video footage that the British paper said showed the prince at the door of Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse in 2010.

By then Epstein was a registered sex offender who had avoided a federal trial at the time and served only 13 months in jail for state prostitution charges over his involvement with underage girls. He was accused of paying hundreds of dollars in cash to girls as young as 14 to have sex with him at his Upper East Side home and his estate in Palm Beach, Florida, and paid some of his victims to recruit other girls for him to abuse.

In 2015, one of Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, said in a federal court filing that she was forced to have sex with the prince while underage. Prince Andrew has “emphatically denied” any sexual contact with Virginia Roberts.

While the statement was intended to clarify the details of a relationship that had plagued the British prince for almost a decade, the reality is that it had ended years earlier in a dramatic chain of events, some of which have never been told before.

The more than decade-long friendship between Prince Andrew and Epstein, who died by suicide in his jail cell on August 10, ended in the Spring of 2011, when Epstein threatened legal action against Prince Andrew’s ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York.

According to interviews with three people with direct knowledge of the events, Epstein grew irate in late February 2011 after the New York Post published a photograph of the prince walking in Central Park with Epstein in late December 2010.

The accompanying article, headlined  ”Prince & Perv, generated a barrage of negative publicity about the prince’s years-long friendship with Epstein. On March 7, 2011, Sarah Ferguson admitted publicly that she had accepted GBP 15,000 ($9,305) from Epstein to help pay an employee to whom she owed money.

On the advice of her publicist, James Henderson, the Duchess gave an interview to London’s Evening Standard in which she expressed extreme contrition for her lack of judgment by accepting the funds from Epstein. With the interview, she put a clear divide between herself and Epstein. “I abhor pedophilia,” she said, adding that she’d had no knowledge of Epstein’s alleged relationships with under-age girls when she took the money.

According to Henderson, Epstein’s reaction to Ferguson’s statement was swift and dramatic. First Henderson received what he described as a “deeply unpleasant” phone call from Epstein, who threatened Henderson with a defamation lawsuit if a statement was not issued retracting the word “pedophile.”

“It was so unpleasant that I was left slightly rattled and I saved his number so I’d never have to take a call from him again,” Henderson told CNN.

Next, the Duchess received a letter threatening legal action from an Epstein lawyer and demanding a retraction, according to Henderson. The letter was sent to Ferguson’s lawyer at Schillings in London, according to Henderson, who says he advised the Duchess not to retract her statement.

Shortly after, Epstein, who had retained the services of Los Angeles publicity firm Sitrick & Company years earlier, now turned to Sitrick for help with the situation. The head and founder of the firm, Michael Sitrick, said he in turn recommended that Epstein hire a new lawyer, the UK defamation attorney Paul Tweed.

That solution didn’t work. Sitrick ended up suing Epstein for failing to pay his bills, and Tweed eventually stopped working for him as well. Tweed told CNN that he stopped working on the matter after “my advices were not acceptable to Epstein.”

According to court documents related to Sitrick’s lawsuit against Epstein and obtained by CNN, Sitrick’s employees, in consultation with Tweed, tried to construct language to propose to Fergie that would serve as some sort of retraction by the Duchess of York.

At one point, Henderson says he was shown a draft statement that asked for a retraction of every single one of the Duchess’s comments.

Ultimately, it was all for naught. On Henderson’s advice, the Duchess never retracted her statements. Records show that in 2014 Sitrick sued Epstein for payment of more than $71,000 in unpaid bills and received a default judgment in his favor.

In a bit of irony, while the incident marked the end of the relationship between Epstein and Prince Andrew, it also led to a friendship between Tweed and the former royal couple. Tweed was photographed last week golfing with Prince Andrew.

The Duchess had been so impressed by his tenacity in 2011 she wound up hiring him a few years later, according to Henderson.

However, the Epstein issue has continued to plague the Duke of York, especially since the Giuffre allegations became public in 2015. (A photograph of the Duke with his arm around Giuffre’s waist allegedly taken in 2001 first surfaced in Britain’s Mail on Sunday in 2011.)

A federal judge has ruled that some documents related to the case could be unsealed.

Lawyers for Giuffre have asked for a meeting with the Duke to explore his relationship with Epstein. He did not answer their requests, according to Giuffre’s lawyers. Buckingham Palace reiterated its statement that Prince Andrew had never had any form of sexual contact with Giuffre.

On Friday, September 20, Giuffre reiterated her allegations about Prince Andrew on NBC’s Today Show, where she appeared with five other alleged Epstein victims. In the segment, Giuffre recounts an incident in which she went out to a club in London with Epstein, his close friend Ghislaine Maxwell, and Prince Andrew. In the car ride back from the club, Giuffre said that Maxwell told her the prince was coming back to her house and that she wanted her to “do for him what you do for Epstein.”

“I just couldn’t believe it,” Giuffre Roberts told NBC. “I couldn’t believe that even royalty were involved.”

In a statement to CNN, Buckingham Palace said that “It is emphatically denied that the Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts. Any claim to the contrary is false and without foundation.”

Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale remains on defense after scrutiny over financial ties

The Trump campaign is fending off questions about recent actions and comments from campaign manager Brad Parscale amid a torrent of criticism over the last few weeks from advisers inside the President’s expansive cutthroat network of confidants and aides.Parscale’s remarks about the Trump family, comparing the powerful real estate clan to a “dynasty,” revealed over the weekend, forced the President’s reelection aides to jump to the campaign manager’s defense once again.

“The Trumps will be a dynasty that lasts for decades,” Parscale said during a retreat for California Republicans, Politico first reported on Saturday. Asked if he thought the Trump children would eventually be on the ballot themselves, he said: “I just think they’re a dynasty. I think they’re all amazing people … with amazing capabilities. I think you see that from Don Jr. I think you see that from Ivanka. You see it from Jared. You see it from all.”

One Trump adviser, however, reacted with astonishment to the campaign manager’s comments, arguing Parscale had committed a serious unforced error.

“It’s was an incredibly stupid statement,” the adviser said, remarking that Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton was partly a defeat of the notion of American political dynasties.

A Trump campaign spokesman explained Parscale only meant to compliment the first family in his comments.

“Brad meant what he said, which was praise for the Trump family’s intelligence and talents, which will have positive impacts on the party for decades to come,” campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh said in a statement.

But one of the President’s most vocal supporters in conservative media lambasted Parscale for the remark.

“This may be one of the dumbest things a campaign manager for a populist candidate ever said: Trump family building ‘dynasty’ for decades to come #MAGA #AmericaFirst #Dobbs,” tweeted Lou Dobbs, a Fox Business host and friend of Trump’s.

The controversy over Parscale’s tone-deaf comments comes as some Trump advisers have raised concerns about the campaign manager’s business activities and the perception Parscale has been profiting from his close ties to Trump.

“The President said he was going to drain the swamp. But, turns out, Parscale IS the swamp,” a long-time Trump adviser said.

Growing concern

Three sources inside and outside the campaign, including longtime Trump advisers, said there is growing concern about Parscale’s business activities, particularly news reports suggesting the campaign manager is profiting from his 2020 work.

Amid scrutiny of his business ties, Parscale has decided to disentangle his business interests from his work for the campaign, ending an ad-buying relationship with the Republican National Committee last month, according to a source close to the company.

There is nothing to indicate Parscale’s job might be in jeopardy, particularly because he still enjoys the confidence of Trump and his children. And like most places in Trump’s orbit, the campaign and his outside advisers are rife with factions, including those opposed to Parscale.

But advisers said his standing could be damaged if stories about his wealth and business ties continue. In the past, Trump has resented people who have brazenly tried to profit off their relationship with him. He personally ordered his campaign to put out a statement rebuking one of his earliest advisers, David Bossie, after he was accused of soliciting funds from Trump supporters and only spending a fraction on direct political activities. Trump has since softened his stance on Bossie.

Parscale’s longevity at the helm of Trump’s campaign is a subject of intense scrutiny in Trumpworld, after the 2016 campaign saw three iterations of leadership and amidst continued high turnover at the White House.

Murtaugh dismissed any concerns as “tired attacks”

“These are the same tired attacks against Brad Parscale from anonymous sources who have a personal stake in smearing him. Brad announced long ago that he was not placing ad buys for the Trump campaign, and in addition, his companies have transitioned out of all political ad-buying of any kind during this cycle to remove even the appearance of self-dealing,” he said.

“(Parscale) took the job of campaign manager because of his love for this country, President Trump, and the entire Trump family. Brad has been transparent with the President and the Trump family from the beginning. These anonymous sources are creating a distraction, which does nothing to further the reelection of the President they claim to support,” Murtaugh added.

Donor concern?

But some Trump campaign donors to the America First PAC have expressed concern to various advisers about the amount of money Parscale appears to be making off of his campaign role and his close ties to Trump.

“Of course they are,” one campaign official said about the donors’ concerns.

“He’s doing the work for everybody, man,” one major campaign donor to Trump’s 2016 effort said. “It’s just ridiculous, it’s outrageous.”

Parscale ingratiated himself with the Trump family as he played a critical role behind the scenes during the last campaign, when he served as the digital director and was in charge of online spending and voter targeting with the use of a highly sophisticated data bank built by the Republican National Committee. Republicans often give him credit for playing a part in the President’s success through his Facebook operation.

After the election, he co-founded America First Policies, the sister nonprofit closely related to the America First Action super PAC. He also helped raise millions of dollars in support of Trump’s reelection bid.

He’s also founded various companies that have received large sums of money from Trump-associated groups.

In 2017, he founded Parscale Strategy LLC, a marketing company that did work for America First Action, as well as others including the Republican National Committee. The America First Action super PAC made its last payment to Parscale Strategy on March 13, 2018, and its first payment to Red State Data and Digital — which Parscale also owns — eight days later, on March 21.

Federal Election Commission records show that Red State Data and Digital has received $910,000 from  America First Action, a large sum for a small company with one client.

The scrutiny over the amount of money he’s made off his political companies has bothered Parscale, particularly criticism among his Republican peers over a $13,500 fee he was paid for a speech to the Republican Party of Seminole County, Florida.

Parscale has returned the money to the campaign, according to a source close to the company. In the wake of the criticism, he has begun downsizing, according to the source, who said he had let three employees go from Parscale Strategy last month. A Trump campaign spokesman declined to comment about whether Parscale had returned the money to the campaign.

And as of August, Parscale Strategy is no longer making digital ad buys for the RNC, according to two sources. Parscale made the decision amid scrutiny of his finances by the Daily Mail.

“It’s not fair to him for him to take the heat on this and he made the decision to let us pay the ads ourselves and not through his firm,” an RNC official, speaking on background in order to speak freely, said.

The decision to cut ties had been discussed prior to the media scrutiny but the final decision came soon after the Daily Mail published, the RNC official said.

But the RNC official rebuked the Daily Mail reporting suggesting that Parscale was taking a percentage of online donations, calling it “insanity.”

Murtaugh refuted the allegations reported by the Daily Mail, telling them: “The suggestion that he is siphoning off a percentage of donations is a lie. Brad receives a monthly salary, and amounts paid to other entities are for staff salaries and services provided. There are no percentages involved anywhere.”

The official said the RNC used Parscale’s firm for ad-buying because he would get “a great rate” from Facebook, Google and other companies because of his track record with those companies.

Family ties

The speculation over Parscale’s finances has not stalled the campaign’s pace, which includes a Monday fundraiser in North Carolina and at multiple fundraisers in California and New York.

And despite the questions about his financial ties, Parscale still finds himself in good standing with the President’s family and those close to him said questions about his money amount to sour grapes. Because the campaign was filled with fractious relationships the last time around, Parscale has made an effort to fill the operation with his own people to minimize the infighting, according to sources familiar with the situation.

This has irked people who consider themselves the President’s earliest advisers but now find themselves on the outside, despite a desire from several of the President’s family members to streamline and professionalize the operation now that Trump is running as an incumbent, not an underdog.

Parscale has also made one strategic move that could help him stay in the job longer than most — deeply embedding himself in the President’s family. Parscale Strategy employs both Lara Trump, the President’s daughter-in-law, and Kimberly Guilfoyle, a former Fox News personality who is dating Donald Trump Jr.

Parscale also has a close relationship with Jared Kushner, and has empowered him to make decisions about the campaign more than most campaign managers would.

Kushner has not raised concerns about Parscale’s business ventures but has asked the campaign manager about the reporting, according to one person familiar with the conversation.

“I think that Brad’s fate probably lies with the donor reaction and then how the media covers it,” one Trump adviser said. “If the donors say we’re not giving any more, we’re not doing any more fundraising … until you do something about Brad or get rid of Brad, if that’s the message from multiple donors, then that’s going to be really problematic for Brad.”

Right now, Parscale still wields power in the Republican Party, too.

He has built strong ties with the chair of the Republican National Committee, Ronna Romney McDaniel. Parscale and McDaniel often phone the President together to discuss fundraising, polling and what’s next for their reelection effort, according to a source familiar with the practice. The campaign and RNC raised a combined $105 million during the second quarter of the year.

Pro-Trump super PAC paid thousands to firm owned by Trump’s campaign manager

A company that President Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Brad Parscale, says he owns has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the President’s flagship political action committee, which is barred from coordinating with the campaign.

Federal Election Commission records indicate that Red State Data and Digital has received  $910,000 from  America First Action,  the super PAC formed in 2017 to support the Trump-Pence agenda and  fellow Republican  candidates.

After CNN initially published a story about Parscale’s wife, Candice, being an owner of Red State, her husband contacted CNN and acknowledged he owns the company even though she is listed on legal paperwork. “I am the owner of Red State,” Parscale told CNN.

Parscale said he hadn’t originally wanted to disclose his ownership publicly because there are no available records connecting him to the company.

Delaware incorporation documents name only Candice Parscale as a “member” of Red State Data and Digital. A “member” of an LLC is usually an owner. The company was founded on March 2, 2018, just days after it was announced that Brad Parscale would become Trump’s campaign manager. His name does not appear on the documents.

In a series of texts with CNN, after initial publication, Parscale said that “so, legally we both own it,” and “she is on the paperwork yes.” He also said that “she is my wife and I allow her to file and be on my companies because I trust her. It depends on how you look at it. But no. It is all my company.” Then later he said, “I own the company solely,” and that his wife “listed it incorrectly” on the incorporation document, speaking of her being named as a “member.” “She just checked the box of what she was. I’m the owner.”

He also tweeted around the same time, “I own all my companies. My wife is member on some of them to do filings and bookkeeping. This is a disgusting trick to make a very simple thing look nefarious. Her last name is Parscale, what would that hide?”

Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of federal candidates, but they are barred from coordinating spending decisions with those campaigns, among other limitations.

Brad Parscale and his wife both insist their arrangement is legitimate and that there is no coordination.

“This is a perfectly legal and appropriate arrangement, which is firewalled, with zero chance for coordination,” he said in a statement. “There could not possibly be coordination because the ads placed were for other candidates in the 2018 midterms. Everything is in FEC compliance.”

Still, experts in federal election law consulted by CNN said earlier that the appearance of a connection between the President’s main super PAC and a firm set up by his campaign  manager’s  spouse that handles political ads walks right up to the line.

“It calls into question the independence of the super PAC,” said Larry  Noble, the former general counsel to the Federal Election Commission and a CNN contributor. “One would hope a watchdog agency would investigate allegations of coordination.”

Noble said the FEC has been “lax” about enforcing coordination rules.  The FEC was further weakened by the resignation of one of its commissioners this week, reducing the number of sitting commissioners to three and thereby stripping it of its power to enforce campaign finance laws. Federal law requires four or more commissioners to approve new rules or take actions to punish those who violate election law.

Leading the campaign

Brad  Parscale  served as Trump’s digital media director during the 2016 campaign. After the election, in January 2017 he co-founded America First Policies, the sister nonprofit closely related to the America First Action super PAC. He also helped raise  millions of dollars in support of Trump’s reelection bid.

In 2017, he founded Parscale Strategy LLC, a marketing company that did work for America First Action, as well as others including the Republican National Committee.

As Trump’s campaign manager, Parscale has come under scrutiny over the amount of money he’s made off his political companies. According to a source close to the company, Parscale was rattled by recent negative press, particularly criticism among his Republican peers over a $13,500 fee he was paid for a speech to the Republican Party of Seminole County, Florida.

Parscale has returned the money to the campaign, according to a source close to the company. In the wake of the criticism, he has begun downsizing, according to the source, who said he had let three employees go from Parscale Strategy in the past week. A Trump campaign spokesman declined to comment about whether Parscale had returned the money to the campaign.

Payments from the PAC

The America First Action super PAC made its last payment to Parscale Strategy on March 13, 2018, and its first payment to Red State eight days later, on March 21.

In 2018, America First paid Red State a total of $837,000, according to FEC records. That makes it the fifth biggest recipient of money from the group last year, according to Open Secrets.

Since then, the company has received payments totaling approximately $70,000 for fundraising consulting and website design and development, according to FEC filings. The last payment of $10,000 was made in June 2019.

The same source close to the company says it stopped involvement with ads or media spends, typically the biggest expenditures of political groups, after the midterms.

In an interview with CNN this week, Candice Parscale said she is simply the bookkeeper for Red State, which she described  as a small web-services company. The super PAC, however, remains Red State’s only client, according to FEC filings.

Candice Parscale also denied having any involvement in Red State’s strategy or work for campaigns.

“I do payroll and invoicing,” she said.

According to its incorporation documents, Red State’s listed street address is the same as a UPS Store near Capitol Hill in Washington. It’s not uncommon for LLC’s to list mailboxes as their addresses.

The company has no website. The Parscales live in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where Candice Parscale says Red State employs at least a couple of people. They also said the company had one employee in Washington.

Once  Brad  Parscale moved over to run the Trump campaign last year, according to his wife, the couple took legal advice as to how to retain a few of his employees. The staff, she says, mostly did not want to leave Florida and had no long-term interest in working for a political action committee.

“These are web designers, not policy people,” she explained. Hence, according to  her,  the  formation of Red State, which could keep the web designers separate from the super PAC.

According to Candice Parscale, Red State does not have a CEO. Instead a woman whom she declined to name runs the company and reports directly to the president of America First Action, Brian Walsh. Candice Parscale said she does not have work-related discussions herself with Walsh, though she does know him socially.

Walsh did not answer specific questions about how he works with Red State or about his relationship with Candice Parscale when asked by CNN.

An America First spokesperson told CNN,  “Red State is a valued vendor that provides us with digital consulting services at a competitive rate,”  and when asked about the propriety of the campaign manager’s wife working for a firm directed by the super PAC, said, “America First strictly complies with FEC rules and regulations and any suggestion otherwise is patently false.”

Campaign experts weigh in

Campaign finance experts say it is difficult to know if the required distance between the entities is being adhered to.

“If  Parscale  wanted to sever himself completely from the super PAC, then I don’t know why he would create a company involving his wife,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21,  a nonprofit organization  committed to reducing the amount of dark money in politics.  “It’s hard to know if there’s a legal issue or not, because of the lack of transparency.”

Wertheimer said it would  be  difficult  to determine whether the Parscales were having  conversations  about work that was being done for the super PAC by Red State.  “That’s why dark money is so dangerous,” he said. “No one knows what’s going on.”

Noble agreed that the setup is “concerning” because it poses the question of  whether  Brad and Candice Parscale  talked strategy together. “It looks terrible because it’s hard to believe they would not share information,” Noble said. “Maybe they won’t,” he added wryly.

This story and the headline have been updated to include additional information given to CNN by Brad Parscale after publication.

House committee subpoenaing former White House staffer Rob Porter

The House Judiciary Committee is subpoenaing former White House staff secretary Rob Porter, according to a source familiar with the matter.

The committee is expected to announce the move as soon as today.

Porter’s subpoena is the sixth issued to officials close to the President in the wake of the release of the Mueller report by Chairman Jerry Nadler, a New York Democrat, and his committee as part of its investigation into President Donald Trump and possible obstruction of justice. The committee has been authorized to issue subpoenas to 17 individuals in total. The committee is expected to announce the subpoena Monday which asks for Porter to testify in a public hearing in September.

So far, former White House counsel Donald F. McGahn has refused to comply with his Congressional subpoena, because the White House asserted that he has absolute immunity from testifying before Congress. The committee has filed a lawsuit to force him to testify.

Two other officials have testified but did not answer nearly any questions about events after the 2016 election at the direction of the White House.

McGahn’s assistant Annie Donaldson, whose notes made for some of the more interesting reading in the Mueller report, answered written questions and is expected to testify in November.

Former White House communications director Hope Hicks testified behind closed doors in June. According to the transcripts, Hicks would not discuss conversations she had with the President while at the White House. Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and former deputy chief of staff Rick Dearborn were both subpoenaed earlier this month.

Lewandoski, the first non-White House employee to be subpoenaed by Nadler, said he would be willing to testify about his campaign role but not about conversations with the President since he took office.

Porter’s testimony could be critical in trying to establish the mindset of the President as he strategized what to do about the Mueller investigation while it was underway.

Who is Rob Porter?

Porter, who was known to take contemporaneous notes, is among the most cited sources after McGahn in the second volume of the Mueller report, the part that covers obstruction as opposed to possible collusion.

A former chief of staff of Utah Republican and former Sen. Orrin Hatch, Porter is a former Rhodes scholar and a lawyer who clerked on the DC circuit of appeals, The 41-year-old was the only Trump White House senior staff member who can lay claim to having worked in all three branches of the government, and he is also the only person so far subpoenaed by Nadler who was not a member of the Trump campaign.

He supported Jeb Bush in the 2016 Republican primary. When Jared Kushner, the President’s son-in-law and a White House senior adviser, asked Porter during the transition if he could be loyal to Trump given his track record, Porter replied he could be loyal to the office of the Presidency, according to a source with knowledge.

Footnotes in the Mueller Report indicate that Porter sat for two days of interviews with the special counsel’s team. As staff secretary, his job was to vet any document the President signed. But it soon morphed into much more than that, it has been widely reported. Porter’s glittering academic resume impressed the President who, according to three sources, increasingly relied on Porter for advice on a broad range of issues.

For example, when former Attorney General Jeff Sessions refused to un-recuse himself from the Mueller investigation, the Mueller report states that the President asked Porter about associate Attorney General Rachel Brand, whom Porter knew personally.

Porter in the Mueller report

According to the report, the President asked Porter to find out if Brand was “on the team” and would be interested in becoming Attorney General one day, or taking on the investigation herself.According to the report, Porter did not do as the President asked and seek out Brand, because, according to the report, he understood that what he was being asked to do, thought it was not stated explicitly by the President, was to find someone to fire the special counsel or end the Russia investigation.Porter was also sandwiched between an angry President and McGahn, according to the report, after McGahn refused to refute an article published by the New York Times that alleged the President had asked McGahn to fire the special counsel. McGahn had not only refused, but threatened to resign, according to the report. Trump had told Porter that the article was “bullsh**” and insisted to Porter that he tell McGahn to write a letter for the public file stating he had never asked McGahn to fire the special counsel. He told Porter that if McGahn did not do as directed “then maybe I will get rid of him.”

According to the Mueller report, Porter told the President that he thought the matter would be best handled by the White House communications office. But after being pressed by the President, he went to McGahn and conveyed the message, which McGahn “shrugged off.”

According to the Mueller report, Porter also talked with then-White House chief of staff John Kelly, who set up a meeting between the President and McGahn, during which McGahn told the President that the optics of firing him would be terrible. McGahn was not fired. He left the White House in October 2018.

Porter resigned from the White House in February 2018 amid allegations from two former wives of domestic abuse. Porter denied the allegations.

But for the next couple of months, the President continued to talk with Porter frequently and wanted him to return to the White House, according to a report in the New York Times. According to the book “Fear: Trump in the White House” by veteran Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, Porter had acted as something of a guardrail against the President’s more extremist positions, especially on a trade war with China and on immigration.

Since then, it’s not clear how often the President and Porter have talked or what the nature of their relationship is now. That could be one reason House Democrats want his testimony come September.

 

CNN Exclusive: New documents reveal behind-the-scenes clash over spending inside Trump inaugural committee

(CNN) — The former adviser to first lady Melania Trump, who has come under fire for the cost of President Donald Trump’s inauguration, was among the event planners who raised concerns about excessive spending in the weeks before the events, according to documents obtained by CNN.

Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a former friend of Melania Trump, has emerged as a witness for investigators and received a subpoena last month by Washington DC’s attorney general.

The 10-page subpoena, which has been seen by CNN, asks Wolkoff to hand over a variety of information, including any evidence of inaugural-related expenditures that were “wasteful, mismanaged, and/or improperly provided private benefit.”

It asks for communications between the inaugural committee and several business entities connected to President Trump or his family, as well as communications between Wolkoff and a number of Trump family members, including Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.

Multiple agencies are investigating Trump’s inauguration, including federal prosecutors in New York who are scrutinizing tens of thousands of documents handed over by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, according to people familiar with the inquiry. Authorities are investigating whether any of the donation money was misspent, used to improperly benefit certain individuals or came from foreign donors. Vanity Fair first reported the DC subpoena.

The DC subpoena is the third Wolkoff has received about the inaugural’s finances. The other two were from the US Attorney’s office in New York’s Southern District and from the House Oversight Committee, according to a source familiar with the matter.

Reached by CNN, Wolkoff said she could not comment, citing a nondisclosure agreement she signed with the 58th Presidential Inaugural Committee, the nonprofit group that oversaw Trump’s inauguration.

In a one-page statement released in April 2019, Wolkoff said, “If the PIC were to release me from this obligation, I would be able to speak freely without the fear of legal or financial repercussions. Otherwise I am regrettably unable to provide any substantive comment.”

But two people close to Wolkoff tell CNN that she has responded to the latest subpoena. That could be worrisome for people connected to the inauguration.

Wolkoff was deeply involved in minute details of the inauguration planning and was included in emails viewed by CNN that included costs, schedules and vendors, among other information.

One of the sources close to Wolkoff told CNN that she is meticulous about record-keeping, and has maintained extensive records of her work surrounding the inauguration, including detailed ledgers and spreadsheets of budget expenses.

Welcome to Washington

This is a story, essentially, of a clash of wills and culture. Wolkoff came to Washington unversed in politics but expert in staging large-scale productions for high-end, notoriously detail-oriented cultural institutions, such as the Lincoln Center and Vogue magazine. She was used to working with people she knew and trusted and expected that her role would include checking the price of every line item, according to the sources. She was told she would be given carte blanche, they say. That turned out not to be case.

Stephanie Winston Wolkoff and Melania Trump in 2008.

Wolkoff left the White House in February 2018 amid controversy, when it was revealed that her firm, WIS Media Partners, was paid close to $26 million to plan events for the inauguration.

That month, senior administration officials said the President and first lady were not pleased to have learned about the money paid to Wolkoff’s firm by the Inaugural Committee, according to The New York Times.

The first lady’s former spokesperson Stephanie Grisham, now the White House press secretary, released a statement at the time saying the White House had “severed the gratuitous services contract with Ms. Wolkoff.”

In her April 2019 statement, Wolkoff disputed that she had been fired, and wrote that Grisham’s words were “not fair or accurate,” and that she had been “thrown under the bus.”

All but $1.6 million of the $26 million payment to Wolkoff’s company went to vendors and subcontractors for broadcast production services of events, according to a document prepared by the company and viewed by CNN.

The Inaugural Committee was chaired by President Trump’s longtime friend, the California-based financier Tom Barrack. The committee’s deputy chairman, Rick Gates, became an employee of Colony Capital, Barrack’s investment firm, after the inauguration.

In February 2018, Gates pleaded guilty to conspiracy and for lying to investigators, on charges unrelated to the inauguration. Gates is currently cooperating with various investigations, as part of his plea agreement.

Barrack has come under scrutiny recently over his dealings with Saudi Arabia.

Asked about the recent subpoena to Wolkoff, spokespeople for Kushner, Gates, Barrack, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump all declined to comment.

The White House would not comment but has previously said the President and first lady were not involved in inauguration planning.

Double the cost

The Trump Inaugural was different in many ways, most notably in what it cost. The event’s record $107 million price tag was more than twice as expensive as President Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration, as well as the 2001 swearing-in of President George W. Bush.

Wolkoff, a longtime friend of the first lady, was asked by Ivanka Trump to run the inauguration after the election, according to one of the sources close to Wolkoff. Wolkoff had a reputation as a strong event planner, having run the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Costume Institute Gala, known as the Met Gala, in New York City.

Once she landed in Washington, Wolkoff realized that the scope of the inauguration was far beyond what had been outlined to by her Barrack and Gates, according to one of the sources. She’d have to trust the “Washington way,” which included, so she was told, working with long-held partnerships.

Thomas Barrack

Four sources familiar with the situation tell CNN that Wolkoff clashed repeatedly with Barrack and Gates over the Inaugural Committee’s spending. A particular point of contention was a vendor called Hargrove Inc., a special events company that Wolkoff felt was charging prices beyond what she thought was reasonable. Hargrove has been involved in producing events for every presidential inauguration since 1949 and was paid at least $25 million for Trump’s inauguration.

Emails obtained by CNN show the concern Wolkoff and other event planners had about Hargrove’s budget. In late December, Gates was copied on an email exchange between Wolkoff and Hargrove managers that said, “I am expressing my concerns because I have no options at this point.” Wolkoff cited “many line items that were not reflected, rentals that were not sourced, budgets that were not accurate and décor elements that were not feasible.”

Hargrove’s then-president replied that “our only goal here is to make this the most successful inauguration ever,” and offered to provide 10 bars free of charge.

An email among inaugural event planners also questioned Hargrove’s prices, with one saying a bid to decorate two halls of the convention center was “literally 5 times anywhere else would be. We’ve accounted for some premium increase, but this is exceptionally high.”

Another email from another partner in the event planning asked Hargrove why the price was so high for scenic elements, writing that the “cost … is not justified with how it has been explained or shown.” CNN did not see Hargrove’s response to this email.

Despite the concerns, Gates approved the hiring of Hargrove for Barrack’s Chairman’s Global Dinner held at Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium, one of multiple events the company was involved in, and the Presidential Inaugural Committee signed off on Hargrove’s budget, according to documents viewed by CNN.

Hargrove declined to comment for this story, but a source familiar with the company’s work on the inaugural events said Hargrove submitted a detailed scope of work documents and invoices and because the scope of work changes with each inauguration, any comparison with other events would be unfair. Hargrove produces many other major events, including the Democratic National Convention, and CNN has, along with other media outlets, worked with Hargrove in its convention coverage.

A spokesperson for Gates told CNN he had no knowledge of Wolkoff’s concerns over Hargrove. Barrack’s spokesperson refused to comment, though it is unclear whether he knew about the cost concerns.

Rick Gates

Wolkoff soon felt excluded from meetings convened by Barrack and Gates that she thought she should have been included in, according to one of the sources close to her.

Things got so bad that Wolkoff voiced her distress in a phone call to Trump’s then-personal attorney, Michael Cohen, who recorded the call. According to a source with knowledge of the recording, Wolkoff told Cohen that she was concerned about the inaugural spending.

The recorded conversation was acquired by federal agents last year during their investigation into Cohen.

Wolkoff, according to the two sources close to her, had gone to work for the Inaugural Committee against the wishes of the majority of her New York friends, many of whom supported Hillary Clinton.

Wolkoff has told one of those sources, a close friend, that she took the job because she felt she had no choice due to her close relationship with the first lady, as well as a sense of patriotic duty

Despite the friction surrounding the inauguration, Wolkoff agreed to work for Melania Trump as an unpaid adviser. Classified as a special government employee, Wolkoff spent a lot of time working from New York City. She was tasked with crafting certain messaging points, as well as cultivating the first lady’s official children’s initiative, though to what extent remains unclear. Wolkoff departed the first lady’s staff in February 2018 — Be Best was launched in April.

Privately, Wolkoff has told multiple people that it’s her belief she was deliberately set up as a scapegoat to deflect attention from other people involved with the inaugural who, to her mind, were guilty of misspending and with whom she grew to have a difficult relationship.

“Stephanie was underestimated,” says a person close to Wolkoff. “They were hoping for a New York socialite who would not look at the details.”

CNN Exclusive: The rise of the Jeffrey Epstein mystique

New York (CNN)—In the days before Jeffrey Epstein died in an apparent suicide early Saturday morning, one of his closest associates, billionaire retail magnate Leslie Wexner, the founder and chairman of L Brands, Inc. went public with a shocking allegation.

In a letter to his charitable foundation, Wexner wrote that Epstein, who’d been his right hand and had power of attorney over his finances, had “misappropriated vast sums” of money from Wexner and his family more than a decade ago—more than $46 million according to The Wall Street Journal.

In his letter, Wexner claimed to be “embarrassed” to have been duped.

The admission raised more questions than it answered: Did Wexner go to the authorities with these claims? And if not, why not? What was the nature of the two men’s relationship? And why had he given Epstein so much control over his finances in the first place?

So much about Epstein’s life (and now his death as well) remains shrouded in mystery. Here was a man of enormous means, with no college degree, no brokers’ license, whose reputation as a financial savant seemed grounded not in any concrete evidence but in the extensive network of powerful people he had cultivated over the years. It remains striking that for someone of such wealth (his fortune was reportedly estimated at half a billion dollars) no one could ever truly say (including Epstein himself) how he actually made his money.

“Nothing about Jeffrey Epstein makes sense, including his death,” said Steven Hoffenberg, Epstein’s former friend and business partner and a convicted fraudster who served 18 years in prison for bilking investors out of $460 million in a ponzi scheme. Since getting out of prison in 2013 Hoffenberg has widely claimed, including to CNN, that it was Epstein who masterminded the whole thing.

Last year, victims of Hoffenberg’s firm, Towers Financial, sued Epstein for restitution of alleged misappropriated funds.

Before his death, it was widely believed that the criminal case brought against Epstein on sex-trafficking charges might finally shed light on the many unanswered questions that surrounded him. That included not just getting to the bottom of the extensive sexual abuse allegations that dogged him, but also examining the darker corners of his rarefied social network that encompassed some of the world’s most powerful people in business, finance, politics and academia.

It was this network after all that gave Epstein his ultimate power and prestige and, until recently, seemed to have made him almost untouchable.

While there are certainly secrets that died with Jeffrey Epstein, some answers may yet come to light.

On Saturday afternoon, Geoffrey Berman, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York who brought the criminal sex trafficking charges against Epstein in July, indicated that while the criminal case against Epstein is over, federal prosecutors still intend to investigate charges that are part of the indictment, including conspiracy.

“Our investigation of the conduct charged in the indictment — which included a conspiracy count — remains ongoing,” Berman said in a statement.

In the weeks following Epstein’s July 6 arrest, and in the hours after his death, people in his social circle in the Hamptons, Epstein’s target audience, focused in on the word “conspiracy,” and what that might mean for a handful of his most exclusive connections.

Within those rarefied orbits, the mystery behind Epstein’s relationship with Wexner is considered to be among the most important to unravel; so too is that of Ghislaine Maxwell, the British socialite and Epstein’s alleged madam, who was not given immunity in Epstein’s non-prosecution-deal of 2007. Maxwell was named in a 2015 civil suit by Virginia Giuffre, an alleged Epstein victim, as the person who introduced Giuffre to Epstein.

The defamation case was settled in 2017, after the judge had ruled against a motion for summary judgment filed by Maxwell.

The rise of Epstein’s mystique

The irony of Epstein’s influence is that he was a deliberately enigmatic figure, who thrived on telling stories about himself that were hard to believe by people who, regardless, kept him close, including Wexner.

“Everything, the money, the girls — it was all a game to him,” an Epstein friend who received almost daily financial advice from him told CNN. “It was like a chain. He took money from the rich people he cultivated, charmed, bribed; and in turn he paid women to do what he asked them. In the end it was all about the money, the power that money gave him.”

In under a decade, Epstein went from tutoring the daughter of Bear Stearns chairman Alan “Ace” Greenberg to rising to become a limited partner with the firm while still in his twenties, advising their wealthiest clients and forming a close alliance with both Greenberg and then CEO James Cayne.

Though he was asked to leave Bear Stearns in the early 1980s, his rise to achieve the vast trappings of wealth was as rapid as it was unconventional. Epstein sold himself as a money manager exclusively to billionaires– but it was unclear who his clients were — other than Wexner — and Hoffenberg, about whom he was much less public.

Part of Epstein’s schtick was to be low key in his dress and showy in his home, where he displayed photographs of the important people he associated with. A recent visitor to Epstein’s house saw “numerous” photographs of Epstein with former President Bill Clinton, as well as photographs of himself with his arm around the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman.

Within the last two years, Epstein separately told four confidants that he was advising the Saudi Crown Prince on financial matters. A close adviser to the Crown Prince denied this, as did a Saudi official who spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity. “The claim that Mr. Epstein was advising HRH Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on financial matters is without foundation,” the official said.

Epstein would also tell people he was making money for various African dictators, according to two Epstein confidants, who said that people who heard this were skeptical. “I wondered if he photo-shopped the pictures,” one of those confidants told CNN.

Other people’s money

For many, Epstein played fast and loose with other people’s money.

Two former Sotheby’s executives confirmed an instance to CNN where Wexner claimed that Epstein made money for him in highly questionable circumstances. In 1994, Sotheby’s, where Wexner was a board director, was in negotiations to buy the site of the former Alexander’s department store in Manhattan, now the site of Bloomberg LP’s headquarters.

Since the talks were non-public, Sotheby’s directors were warned to make no transactions with their stock to avoid suggestions of insider trading, the two executives said.

Yet public financial records show that that same year Wexner sold more than a million shares. A. Alfred Taubman, Sotheby’s then-chairman who died in 2015, told one of the former Sotheby’s executives, that he was furious with Wexner for trading while the real estate deal was pending.

Records show that Wexner left the board the next year, after, according to the Sotheby’s source, Taubman asked him to. According to this source, when Taubman questioned Wexner about the sale, Wexner professed ignorance and blamed Epstein for the transactions.

A spokesperson for Wexner declined to comment. Wexner has not been charged with any crimes. CNN reported Monday that he has hired one of the most prominent criminal defense attorneys in New York, Mary Jo White, who is a partner at law firm Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and is the former US attorney in Manhattan.

The Social network

Epstein’s financial success was dependent on the vast, eclectic social network which enabled him to throw dinners at his house where he could introduce academics to politicians and financiers and royalty — and of course, women. In this regard Epstein appears to have received considerable assistance from the British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, the daughter of the late Robert Maxwell, a British tycoon who died in mysterious circumstances in 1991, disappearing off his yacht. It was posthumously discovered that Maxwell committed a massive pension fraud.

In an interview with CNN, a former nanny for Ghislaine Maxwell’s sister, Christine, recalled that in the 1990’s Ghislaine showed up at Christine’s home in Oakland Hills, California, to “lick her wounds” over a break-up with Epstein.

Ghislaine stayed in her sister’s house for just over 24 hours, according to the nanny, Sydney Proctor. After Ghislaine’s departure, Proctor recalled that Christine was livid on behalf of her sister, because “to add insult to injury Jeffrey made Ghislaine find his girlfriends.”

In an interview from 2002, one alleged Epstein victim, Annie Farmer, said she would never have stayed under Epstein’s roof had it not been for the fact Maxwell assured her mother she would act as chaperone.

In an email to CNN, Christine Maxwell said she has “no recollection of ever having had any such conversation with Sydney Proctor in relation either to my sister or Epstein.”

Even after they split, Maxwell stayed close to Epstein. Her name is mentioned frequently in a cache of documents that were unsealed last week in which it’s alleged she was a procurer for Epstein and other high-profile people.

According to multiple people in affluent Manhattan circles, including two of her girlfriends, Maxwell introduced Epstein to many of the social figures in his life. She herself socialized in exclusive circles that included people connected to politics.

Chelsea Clinton invited Maxwell to her wedding and even brought Maxwell backstage at the Clinton Global Initiative summit in 2009, according to eyewitness accounts.

Bari Lurie, a spokesperson for Chelsea Clinton, says the only reason Clinton was acquainted with Maxwell was because Maxwell was dating a friend of hers, Ted Waitt, the billionaire co-founder of Gateway Inc.

In recent days, Maxwell has not been spotted. Maxwell was not among the four women who received immunity in Epstein’s 2007 non-prosecution agreement, which has left the people in Epstein world wondering if, in the wake of Epstein’s death, she now becomes the number one target of many of the alleged victims.

Multiple attempts to contact Maxwell have been unsuccessful.

A source close to Maxwell told CNN recently that she sat with Maxwell on a flight from Miami to New York around December of last year. When asked where she was living, Maxwell did not want to be pinned down. “I live all over the place,” she replied.

The inside story of how a kosher meat kingpin won clemency under Trump

Washington (CNN)It was presented as a bipartisan slam dunk; that rarest of moments when President Donald Trump was apparently swayed by letters of support from over 30 members of Congress, including his nemesis, then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, as well as dozens of legal experts. Now-Attorney General William Barr was on board with the decision. Pugnacious pundit and defense attorney Alan Dershowitz publicly took credit for persuading the President.

That was the tenor of the official story the White House rolled out in December 2017, announcing the Presidential commutation of the sentence of Sholom Rubashkin, the former CEO of America’s largest kosher meat processing plant who was convicted in 2009 of a series of fraud charges. Rubashkin’s legal troubles began in 2008, when a federal immigration raid, similar to the one just completed across Mississippi, discovered nearly 400 undocumented workers at his plant in Iowa.
But it wasn’t Pelosi or Dershowitz who convinced Trump to give clemency to Rubashkin. It was the persistence of his son-in-law Jared Kushner, according to the impression of three former officials close to the issue. It was Kushner, they say, who brought the Rubashkin case up to a dispassionate Trump several times in the summer and fall of 2017, before finally persuading him to make what would be his first commutation and only his second act of clemency.
The letters of support told a nice story, but on their merit alone, the former White House officials say, the documents would not have moved Rubashkin “to the top of the pile” of what they believe were far more legitimate candidates sitting at the Justice Department’s Pardons office. In fact, according to two former White House officials, even if Rubashkin’s name had been submitted to the Justice office for consideration under Trump, no one from the Pardon Attorney’s office had raised the case with the White House.
Interviews with those three former senior White House officials reveal for the first time the critical role Kushner played in winning clemency for Rubashkin. The exclusively reported details offer a window into the ad-hoc personality-driven way decisions are made in this administration. They also show the influence of the President’s son-in-law and Kushner’s father, Charles, a convicted felon, who sources say was lobbying the New York legal community to rally around an effort to push for clemency for Rubashkin shortly after Trump was elected.
The Rubashkin commutation is one of the earliest examples of Kushner’s success in persuading the President to make a decision that appeared to some in the White House to be a blatant example of cronyism and was out of step with their political messaging. The Rubashkin commutation was felt by those three senior White House staff who spoke to CNN, to be glaringly hypocritical, because of what one person called “the immigration element.”
The announcement came just four months after the President’s first pardon of former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, an anti-immigration firebrand who long supported Trump.
One former White House senior adviser observed to CNN that, when viewed together, the Arpaio and Rubashkin cases were completely contradictory. Regardless, both were ultimately viewed as political triumphs by the President: two completely disparate camps of his base (immigration hardliners and orthodox Jews) expressed their gratitude and support. That showed him the transactional benefit of Presidential pardons and commutations, and how they might be used going forward.
In response to questions from CNN and the President and Jared Kushner’s roles, a senior administration official said: “The President was going to do the right thing — and will do the right thing — on pardons and commutations regardless what the particular messaging will look like.”
Justice Department records show that Trump has now issued at least 14 pardons and six commutations. By contrast, Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton issued no pardons or commutations in their first two years of office. President Barack Obama issued his first commutation in December 2010, just shy of the two-year mark of his time in office.
This week, Trump said he is considering granting clemency to Illinois’ former Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich. The New York Times reported that Kushner has suggested to the President that a commutation of Blagojevich’s sentence would appeal to Democrats. The senior administration official disputed this was what Kushner was suggesting.
Rubashkin’s undoing
When US Immigration and Customs Enforcement raided Rubashkin’s plant, Agriprocessors in Postville, Iowa, it was one of the biggest immigration raids at the time. In the aftermath, the picture that emerged in court papers was of a chaotically run business. Reports around the trial noted that Rubashkin had used $300,000 of company money to pay his credit card bills and $200,000 on a home renovation.
Prosecutors argued that he fabricated documents that falsely claimed he had vast amounts of collateral, costing banks that loaned to him tens of millions of dollars. Although Rubashkin was initially charged with immigration offenses, prosecutors focused on Rubashkin’s financial abuses.
In 2010 when Rubashkin received a 27-year sentence there was a public outcry, not least because the sentence exceeded the prosecutors’ request, which had been for 25 years. Six former US attorneys general wrote to the judge, Linda K. Reade, to complain. In an unusual move, before formally sentencing Rubashkin, Reade released a 52-page document explaining her decision.
In addition to his prison term, Reade ordered Rubashkin to pay back nearly $27 million in restitution.
Over the next several years, Rubashkin’s lawyers made various attempts to appeal the ruling, including all the way until December 2017, the same month that Trump commuted his sentence. In their appeals, Rubashkin’s lawyers claimed Reade had been too closely involved with the US Attorney’s office and its planned raid on Rubashkin’s plant. Prosecutors subsequently said that Reade was not told in advance where the operation would take place and that she was not told about the targets.
Before leaving office, Obama rejected Rubashkin’s appeals for clemency. By then, his lawyers were lobbying intently for high-level political and legal support. Among them was Gary Apfel, a prominent California corporate lawyer who also represents the Aleph Institute, a non-profit organization affiliated with the orthodox Chabad Lubavitch movement that Rubashkin belongs to.
Apfel had read about Rubashkin’s case and had asked to take him on as a client pro bono.
The Aleph Institute reached out to the former Harvard law professor, Dershowitz, who says he was asked to do a legal analysis of the government’s role in the sentencing. Apfel says he was the one who directly reached out to legal experts and members of Congress including Pelosi.

Kushners on the case

According to a source with knowledge, Charles Kushner also started to lobby the New York legal community the moment Trump won the 2016 election. In January 2017, Reade denied Rubashkin’s motion to be resentenced. Soon after, Jared Kushner took up Rubashkin’s cause inside the White House.
Charles Kushner’s attorney said he understood Dershowitz’s lobbying is what deserves credit.
“Anyone who helped get Rubashkin out deserves a medal, not criticism,” said Benjamin Brafman.
It is not known if the Kushners personally knew Rubashkin. But Charles Kushner has talked about the gratitude he has felt toward the Chabad Lubavitch movement, according to someone familiar with that community. A Chabad rabbi took Kushner, an observant Jew, kosher meals and helped him with religious obligations while he served 14 months of a two-year prison sentence in Montgomery, Alabama, for witness tampering, tax evasion and illegal campaign contributions. President Trump has also welcomed the Lubavitch group into the White House.
In assessing the Rubashkin case, the President turned to three White House officials— Donald F. McGahn, Chief White House Counsel, whose office is the liaison with the Justice Department; Staff Secretary Rob Porter, a lawyer who at the time was a particularly trusted adviser to Trump; and newly-installed chief of staff, Gen. John Kelly, who was supposed to vet all political decisions. All three have left the White House.
Kelly had come to the job with a mandate of instituting a level of order and discipline into the chaotic West Wing. That included being told by the President to rein in his daughter, Ivanka Trump, and her husband Jared Kushner, according to two White House sources. Kelly bristled at the Rubashkin issue, and “wanted to get the case off his desk,” according to a former colleague. McGahn disliked it too, according to two sources close to McGahn, largely because of its association with immigration.
Though McGahn felt the Rubashkin case had some merit, given the disparity between his crime and sentence, he ultimately took a neutral position, feeling there would be more serious issues on which to oppose the President’s son-in-law.
It was a case of: “pick your battles [with Kushner],” said someone close to McGahn.
Porter, a Harvard-educated lawyer with whom the President had a special rapport, took a nuanced view, say sources, feeling that on the one hand it was a clear act of favoritism, but that, given the widespread political support for clemency, the optics were much less controversial than the Arpaio pardon which Porter and others had delayed, fearing a backlash.
Ultimately, it took Trump, who said he had never heard of Rubashkin when Jared Kushner first raised his case, months to wrap his head around what to do. “What do you think I should do?” He occasionally asked a group of his advisers who were non-committal, according to one source.
Kushner, meanwhile, educated himself on the facts of the case; his senior aide Avrahm (Avi) Berkowitz had several conversations with Alan Dershowitz who provided him with information about the case, that he in turn got from Apfel.
Apfel told CNN that Dershowitz was his main avenue into the White House, but that he had also liaised directly with McGahn’s then-deputy Uttam Dhillon. “There’s never been a more outrageous case than this,” said Apfel, adding: “it’s just nasty” to suggest there might “be more compelling cases.”
Dershowitz has previously taken credit for persuading the President on the issue, claiming to the the Jewish newspaper The Forward that it was because he had explained to Trump the belief that prosecutors in the case had deterred prospective buyers, thus driving down the price of the business, which Rubashskin’s lawyers claimed led him to commit fraud.
“When I explained that to the President, he understood that from a business point of view,” Dershowitz told The Forward.
Dershowitz denied ever speaking with Kushner on the subject, though he does admit speaking fairly frequently to Berkowitz.
“I had no knowledge [that the Kushners] were involved,” Dershowitz told CNN. Dershowitz says his meeting with Trump took place in person a few months before the actual commutation.

Trump signs off

Ultimately Trump signed the commutation after Kushner had pushed a number of times as Hanukkah was approaching. The President liked the idea of doing something that could play well in the Orthodox Jewish community, according to a former senior White House official with direct knowledge of the President’s thinking at the time. And he was buoyed by the reaction among anti-immigration voters in his base to the Arpaio pardon.
The irony of the contradictory politics in the two clemency cases never struck him, at least visibly, says a White House source.
Rubashkin’s commutation was met with ecstatic approbation in the Orthodox community in Brooklyn where he was greeted “like a war hero” according to someone who witnessed his return from prison.
But the arguments made to the President by Kushner only went so far. The commutation of Rubashkin’s sentence is not the equivalent of a pardon. A point stressed in the official White House announcement. Though he walked out of prison in Otisville, New York, a free man, Rubashkin still has to pay nearly $27 million in restitution and has a supervised release for five years.
According to a former senior White House official who spoke with Kushner frequently, the President’s son-in-law had already been asking about the broader issue of criminal justice reform, even as the Rubashkin case played out. “I think it’s fair to say that all of this started with his perception that people that he knew, including his father, had been treated unjustly,” the former official said. “And that people sort of deserve to have some mercy and second chances, but his interest was mostly in currying favor with the Orthodox Jewish community.”

Part of a pattern

Last year Kushner played a pivotal role in getting the so-called First Step Act passed into law, which essentially gives non-violent offenders a chance to re-enter society more quickly and easily than previously.
Even so, Kushner’s actions left a bitter-sweet taste in the mouths of a number of criminal lawyers working on clemency. They were disappointed by the closure of a program at the end of the Obama administration, through which more than 1,700 inmates received pardons or commutations. These lawyers say that if Trump and Kushner truly cared about clemency, they would’ve kept the program.
“On the one hand Kushner got us the First Step Act,” said a prominent lawyer speaking on the condition of anonymity, for fear of reprisals.
“On the other hand, if they’re so interested in correcting outrageous sentences, why don’t they do a clemency program? I mean, instead of, it’s all got to be personal, it’s got to be Kim Kardashian’s person, or this one’s person. I mean, it’s all celebrity bullshit.”

Jeffrey Epstein’s Sick Story Played Out for Years in Plain Sight

A couple of years ago, I was interviewing a former senior White House official when the name Jeffrey Epstein came up.

Unaware of my personal history with Epstein, this person assured me that the New York financier was no serious harm to anyone. He was a good guy. A charming guy. Useful, too. He knew a lot of rich Arabs, including the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, and, further, he had clever ideas about creating bond issues for them. “OK, so he has a girl problem,” this person threw on, almost as an afterthought.

Epstein’s name, I was told, had been raised by the Trump transition team when Alexander Acosta, the former U.S. attorney in Miami who’d infamously cut Epstein a non-prosecution plea deal back in 2007, was being interviewed for the job of labor secretary. The plea deal put a hard stop to a separate federal investigation of alleged sex crimes with minors and trafficking.

“Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?” Acosta had been asked. Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he’d had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He’d cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” he told his interviewers in the Trump transition, who evidently thought that was a sufficient answer and went ahead and hired Acosta. (The Labor Department had no comment when asked about this.)

Jared Kushner may have an ethics problem – to the tune of $90m

The stench surrounding Jared Kushner has grown more pungent with every passing day.

On Monday, the Guardian’s Jon Swaine reported that, since Kushner entered the White House as a senior adviser to his father-in-law, a company Kushner co-founded has received over $90m in foreign funding, channeled through secretive offshore companies.

The public has no idea where this money is coming from – a major problem given that Kushner is not just one of Donald Trump’s chief international envoys, he is the de facto chief envoy.

The former secretary of state Rex Tillerson and former defense secretary James Mattis found Kushner’s interference in Middle East diplomacy opaque, irritating and – by the summer of 2017, when he greenlit a blockade of Qatar, a country with a US airbase – downright dangerous. His zeal for settling a “deal of the century” for the Israeli prime minister, “Bibi” Netanyahu, an old family friend, has made him the US government point person in a region notorious for attempting to curry US political favor with dollars.

But this is Trump World. There is only one guiding rule, which the principals barely bother to hide: pay to play. The corruption and self-dealing by Trump and his family is on so vast a scale that if it wasn’t so horrifying you’d almost admire the audacity.

Kushner founded the company in question, an online commercial real estate broker called Cadre, with his brother, Joshua, in 2014. “Cadre is going to make us billionaires,” Kushner announced to colleagues shortly afterwards. He refused to give up the entirety of his stake when he joined the Trump administration. (Kushner claims he divested from most of it, but shareholders were not notified of any sale, which is highly unusual.)

Worse: on his initial financial disclosure form, which he filed in March 2017 with the Office of Government Ethics, Kushner did not even list his stake in Cadre, which was worth up to $25m at the time. After the glaring oversight was reported by the Wall Street Journal, a lawyer for Kushner said that the omission was inadvertent and would be rectified. By June 2018, Kushner’s stake in Cadre was valued at up to $50m, or between 3% and 6% of the company.

A whistleblower has alleged that Kushner’s business interests are among the reasons career White House personnel security officers recommended that neither he nor his similarly conflicted wife, Ivanka Trump, be given a security clearance – a recommendation President Trump ignored.

Many administrations suffer embarrassing exhibits of corruption from family members who see proximity to power as their opportunity to cash in. In the 1970s, Jimmy Carter’s little brother, Billy, tried to profit by endorsing Billy Beer. In 1999, Neil Bush, son of the 41st president and brother of the future 43rd, founded a classroom technology company that received investments from the Kuwaiti royal family, a Chinese technology executive and a Russian billionaire. That same year, Tony Rodham, Hillary Clinton’s now deceased brother, partnered with the political opponent of a United States ally to export hazelnuts from the former Soviet republic of Georgia.

But those efforts were made outside the White House by relatives without top-level security clearances. They pale in comparison to what the Trumps and Kushners may have done.

Some highlights to date: first there is the issue of the president’s tax returns, which Trump has refused to disclose despite a law that says that the treasury secretary must provide them to Congress if requested. We also know that, starting in 2010, Deutsche Bank lent money to the Trump Organization not from the bank’s own balance sheet, but via the private banking division, which means that Trump’s business is on the hook to entities or individuals whose identity is obscured.

Meanwhile, as president, Trump has brazenly intermingled politics with his business by flaunting presidential access via Trump properties like Mar-a-Lago, the so-called “Winter White House”, and the Trump International Hotel in Washington DC, which have been flooded with foreign occupants looking to curry favor with administration figures.

Then there was “the bangle”. On 16 November 2016, just days into the Trump transition, Ivanka promoted a diamond bracelet from her jewelry line on 60 Minutes. The next day, her company sent out a “style alert” advertising the bangle for over $10,000. For the next 17 months, Ivanka moonlighted as a White House adviser while keeping ownership of her company, which was awarded several lucrative foreign trademarks, sometimes around the time of her meetings or chats with those foreign countries’ leaders.

Meanwhile, her husband, Jared – nominal head of foreign outreach on behalf of the Trump transition – and his father, Charles, were meeting secretly with the Chinese and various Middle Eastern rulers, seeking funds to bail out their financially stricken building at 666 Fifth Avenue, for which they needed $1.4bn by February 2019.

Fortuitously for the Kushner family business, the blockade of Qatar continues, which means the Qataris are still vulnerable. In the spring, representatives of the Qatari government told me in person and by email that there was another payment due to Jared via an offshore fund in June – which happens, apparently, to be when Cadre received the $90m.

In any other administration, a senior government official (let alone son-in-law) who was revealed to have clung on to a $50m stake in a company while serving in office and not disclosed it would have been asked by the president to leave. But President Trump will do no such thing – so other parts of the government must.

The Department of Justice should investigate Jared’s initially non-disclosed $50m stake in Cadre, and the investments the company has since received.

And Congress must work harder to overcome stonewalling and investigate the strange relationships that Kushner Companies and the Trump Organization have had with Deutsche Bank, where senior executives ignored calls to report Trump and Kushner transactions to the government for potentially suspicious activity. At least Senator Elizabeth Warren is demanding that the government-backed mortgage firm Freddie Mac supply details about its $800m Kushner deal this spring.

Congress should also put the microscope on Jared’s private communications and unwavering alliance with the clearly dangerous – but rich – crown prince of Saudi Arabia. (The Saudis, it should be noted, were shareholders in the Canadian firm that bailed out 666 Fifth Avenue.) But somehow that message gets lost in noise about Russia and other red herrings.

History will judge corruption to be the most destructive and defining characteristic of the mob-like family occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And it will be – but only if Congress takes action.